Tuesday, September 24, 2013

What causes a crisis?

Historians usually refer to the period before the American Civil War as a crisis in some way.  The crises took many forms, however--sectional, social, and they even transcended directly into the polical arena (i.e. the caning of Charles Sumner).  After reading the introductory piece on the war's causes, what stands out to you the most as a cause of crisis?  Defend your position--as we all know, there were myriad causes to this war.

13 comments:

  1. Before reading this, I always thought that the Civil War was solely caused by the disagreement on slavery because of the inhumanity of it. After reading this, I think that the main cause of crisis was that the North and South disagreed on slavery, not because it was wrong, but because of economical reasons. Also, they both wanted to expand into the west. The North wanted to advance their production and become urban, industrial, and mechanized, while the South wanted to keep the traditional, agricultural ways and continue to use slave labor. However, slave labor created very cheap wages and this was a problem for the white laborers in the North. On the other hand, the South knew that they needed to expand slavery into the west if they wanted to keep up economically. This caused the disagreement over expansion. The South seceded because it believed that it was the only way that it would be able to preserve and spread slavery. This caused even more problems with the government because unionists like Abraham Lincoln thought that it was illegal for the South to secede. It's strange because I always thought that the main cause was that the majority of the North believed that slavery was morally wrong, and that equality and freedom for all was the way to go.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Many things created a great tension between the north and the south of the United States. But i believe what caused the greatest tension was electing Abraham Lincoln as president. this was because he was a opposed of slavery. The south did not want him to change how they were. because the north had become mostly industrial and the south was still mostly agricultural. They knew that he had the power to change the south and how they received there income. Every southerner wanted a pro-slavery president and the north the opposite. They knew that Lincoln was against slavery and that he wanted to end it. So the south seceded from the union which was the beginning of the civil war.

    ReplyDelete
  3. To me the thing that stands out the most as a reason for the tension between the North and the South was not the wrongness of slavery: but simply the struggle for power. After the Mexican War more lands were obtained such as New Mexico, Arizona and the Caribbean more lands were added into the struggle for power. Not to mention that the Louisiana purchase also added more lands to the question. The problem with these lands were whether or not they would be slave states or free states. The North of course wanted them to be free states in order to one, have more power in congress because they would be forced to send representatives and two, if they were not slave states they would be able to use it as a source of income/ a place to be able to hire more people. The South wanted these new states for similar reasons, to be in power, to have more representation but also they wanted them in order to increase slave trade and prevent it from ending, which is opposite of what the North wanted. This created tension because there was a constant struggle for new land between the North and the South. Therefore, when Lincoln (who was openly opposed to spreading slavery) the South knew they would never achieve what they wanted and therefore the left the Union.

    ReplyDelete
  4. After reading this, i think that the biggest "cause of crisis" war trigger was the west. The dispute about whether or not California would become a slave state looks to be a huge trigger of war. The northerners believed that they could use the western land to expand their urban industry whereas the south expected to use the same land as a gateway into keeping slavery alive. The fact that the south seceded only because it believed that it was the only way to be able to spread slavery even further, (Arizona, New Mexico the Caribbean and Central America) makes sense. I was not aware of that fact prior to the reading but looking back on it, i can make sense of it. The south was extremely persistent in pushing to expand slavery, not to lose it or let the free states overrule it. Thinking that the south seceded without assuming it would be able to further spread slavery now seems laughable. I highly doubt that the south would have seceded as willingly as it had without prior assumption that they would be able to expand slavery. The entire debate on whether or not the south could legally seceded without being considered treason is another aspect of the war. Southerners believing that the states were what created the federal government and not the other way around, the states created the union, etc. just caused more confusion between the states, the union and the people. I found this reading interesting because of how it clarified true meanings and unveiled true agendas relating to the war and slavery.

    ReplyDelete
  5. What stands out to me the most as a cause of crisis is the industrial revolution in the north. After the revolution factories in the north had enough machines to sustain their economy while in the south they needed the slaves to sustain theirs. DUring the revolution the south was afraid that the north would take over the new states because theyre econmy was growing so fast, but the south was mostly family farms, so that when the north was expanding they south was afraid that they would gain control over the new states and then abolish slavery which would end the souths economy. So while the north didnt need to go to war to end slavery, if the south wanted to keep it they would have to fight for it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. After reading this article, I have concluded that the main cause of slavery is the economic stability, and instability caused by slavery. On one hand, slavery secured the finances and careers of plantation owners (mainly, the South). On the other hand, slavery eliminated potential jobs of free white people (mainly, the North). If either side won, it seemed like half of the country would be poor or out of a job. THAT was the crises. Job and financial security. If half of the nation was destitute, the rest of the country was sure to follow suit sooner or later, because America is built to work united. The entire idea of The United States doesn't work if neither halves are cooporating with eachother, and the country fails if both halves depend on eachother, but one half is failing. The crises was that if either side won, the nation would go under.

    ReplyDelete
  7. There were a lot of different factors that caused the civil war. Because of the fact that the South and the North developed in a different directions, the tention between the North and the South was inevitable. Of course, both economies had similarities but different kinds of needs in Urbanist(North) and agriculturist(South) society divided them. For instance, because of the fact that South was a rural and a agricultural society based on slave labor, South's economy was based on plantation on slavery since the invention of the cotton gin. However, Northeners viewed slavery as an outdated labor system and an embarrassment to American democracy since for every acre farmed by a black slave could not be farmed by a free white person. Plus, because the South lacked population compared to the North, they had a hard time getting representations. Keeping up with slaves was the only way for them to survive. They had thought that if there were more free states than slave states, they would lose control and eventually slavery would be abolished. Therefore, when new states applied to become part of the U.S, it had become very controversial between the South and the North. Plus, instances such as Uncle Tom's Cabin reinforced regional streotypes, causing harsh tentions against each other.

    ReplyDelete
  8. All I knew before reading this is that there was much tension between the south and north because of the slavery conflict as Phoebe said. But now, I believe that the main cause of the civil war broke out, was the election of Abraham Lincoln, since this president was against slavery. So we can say that the north turned "winner" but on the other hand, the southerners, wanted a president pro-slaver and the election of Lincoln, the fear was expanded in southern states because they knew it was a matter of time that slavery would be forbidden. The North was becoming much more urban and industrial using more technology such as machines more efficient while the South was still trusting and depending on slavery and therefore the crisis began.

    ReplyDelete
  9. After reading this passage, it is evident that the largest cause of crisis was Mexico's cession of the Western territories after the Mexican War. The Union acquired a huge amount of land where the South wanted to expand slavery so that slavery could continue in America, and where the North wanted to prevent slavery. Although the North did not do this for moral reasons, the Northerners just didn't want slaves taking jobs away from white laborers. They figured that every acre farmed by a black slave was an acre that could not be farmed by a free white person. So when California became a 'free' state, Southerners were outraged. they argued that they had sent the most soldiers to the war and they felt cheated. Then the Northern Senators cut Baja California out of the Gadsden purchase as a symbol to show that they would rather keep land out of the US than to allow slavery to exist in the West. The North's antagonism only increased tensions between the North and the South. Congress's mad race for a balance of power between the North and the South heightened with the advent of the new territories, causing a crisis among the leaders in Washington D.C. and the American people.

    ReplyDelete
  10. There were many things that led up to the Civil War. I think that the election of Abraham Lincoln was the largest reason for the war. This stands out to me the most because it was the last event that happened before the war began. Obviously all of the things that happened before this caused problems between the North and the South, but this was just the cherry on top. This was most likely the breaking point for most of the Southerners because they knew that Lincoln was against slavery. I think many other events could have happened before the Civil War began if he was never elected. This was too much for the South to handle, so that is why it was so important. If Abraham Lincoln wasn't elected at this time, the Civil War could have been put off for at least a few more years. This event is very significant to the start of the Civil War.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I always thought that the Civil War was just a disagreement between the North and the South about slavery because that is always what I was taught. Now after reading I know that, that wasn't the case. I agree with Christina that the election of Abraham Lincoln was a huge turning point. The leader of the country was against slavery and had a huge problem to deal with that half the country used slavery. Another thing that I found very interesting was The Ostend Manifesto, that "Many northerners objected to what they believed was a conspiracy by the slave power to increase slave territory by annexing Cuba". Other countries such as cuba basically got together and said that the US was allowed to take any of their people, which did not settle very well with many northerners. In the end Lincoln did not want slavery to continue and tried to make it illegal but he didn't want the south to break away.

    ReplyDelete
  12. the full extent of my civil war knowledge was that the rift between the north and the south due to their views on slavery was one of the causes. I knew there were others but i had no idea that westward movement also attributed to their diverging ideologies. Once this was brought up it was apparent how the future of a new state could cause problems because it's basically a choice to increase the size and thus the influence of either the north or the south.

    ReplyDelete